The Catholic Church had everyone as followers because there was no other. Christ established only one church.the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?
If that were the case why are there 1.2 billion of us today. Are we all illiterate morons?the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?
no, but what if there had been protestants from the time for example. and perhaps that was the reason the reformation was so successful? perhaps people didn’t know the faith well enough to defend it because they wouldn’t understand mass or read scripture?If that were the case why are there 1.2 billion of us today. Are we all illiterate morons?
Yeah it doesn’t really follow. I think it is presumptuous to say most people did not know the faith.no, but what if there had been protestants from the time for example. and perhaps that was the reason the reformation was so successful? perhaps people didn’t know the faith well enough to defend it because they wouldn’t understand mass or read scripture?
It’s not just being able to read Scripture intellectually, but also it’s availability.no, but what if there had been protestants from the time for example. and perhaps that was the reason the reformation was so successful? perhaps people didn’t know the faith well enough to defend it because they wouldn’t understand mass or read scripture?
From the 12th century on, there were a lot of heretical movements. Now one could argue that the people who didn’t join these movements were ignorant, or were in fear of what happened to the people who did join. . . .the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?
thank you, this was helpful. especially coming from someone who isn’t catholic. it gives a proper, balanced view. by the way, it’s not really my question specifically; i’ve just felt that i want to try and share my faith with more people and am trying to prepare myself for questions that might come up and just is just one that i thought of and didn’t really have much information about. i’ve also done some searching and it seems lke latin was still used quite frequently in themiddle ages so maybe more people understood it than i thoughtFrom the 12th century on, there were a lot of heretical movements. Now one could argue that the people who didn’t join these movements were ignorant, or were in fear of what happened to the people who did join. . . .
But certainly these heretical movements were powerful voices of critique and they had an effect on the Church.
It is certainly true that free religious choice wasn’t present in the Middle Ages. One can’t assume from the fact that nearly everyone theoretically belonged to the Church that they all were devout and orthodox. in fact we know that they weren’t.
At the same time, we have plenty of evidence of devout, passionate faith in medieval Catholicism, including members of the lower classes. It was a mixed bag. But contrary to the stereotype some have, intelligent lay participation increased throughout the Middle Ages. The period right before the Reformation was a period of intense lay piety.
Protestant and secular historians often try to shoehorn medieval renewal movements into the category of “precursors of the Reformation.” This is prejudiced. One generally good textbook that I used when teaching a class put the Dominicans and Franciscans in the “later Middle Ages” under the category of responses to corruption, while dealing with other 13th-century developments in the previous chapter. That’s a relatively subtle example of the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Not sure how helpful any of this is . . . .
Also, by the later Middle Ages there was quite a bit of literacy, and a lot of religious literature was available in the vernacular. To some extent this was the case from very early on as well–in Anglo-Saxon England, for instance, large chunks of the Bible were translated into English.
Edwin
yes i do know that at least. there was no printing back then so any copies of the bible had to be written by hand as well as any translations of the bible. that definitely makes it harder. i guess i was thinking more of the mass mostlyIt’s not just being able to read Scripture intellectually, but also it’s availability.
Source: I carry a Bible inside of my phone everywhere I go.
It is true that in the first 13 centuries of the Church a large majority of people in Europe were illiterate. But that doesn’t mean the Church was responsible for the illiteracy. People were still read the bible during Mass and a basic understanding of Christ was told to them. What made the Church splinter was the printing press being invented and literacy rates rising.the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?
Please remember too, the reason the church) adopted latin in the first place was because it was the universal language of the Roman Empire. Latin was the language predominantly spoken during the Middle Ages.yes i do know that at least. there was no printing back then so any copies of the bible had to be written by hand as well as any translations of the bible. that definitely makes it harder. i guess i was thinking more of the mass mostly
Being able to read the bible is 1 thing, to understand and put it together is another. Remember we had a discussion of how Protestants are allowing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality when the bible condemns it. So Protestant really don’t know the bible.It’s not just being able to read Scripture intellectually, but also it’s availability.
Source: I carry a Bible inside of my phone everywhere I go.
Well, it really depends… I would say our current Pope would condemn burning heretics while other Popes have said it’s not against the will of the Spirit.Being able to read the bible is 1 thing, to understand and put it together is another. Remember we had a discussion of how Protestants are allowing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality when the bible condemns it. So Protestant really don’t know the bible.
I think that you have to look at the church and it’s teachings not the pope or the cardinal in your area or your bishop or priest is. Yes we have had men who have done things that as we Catholics all you can do is put your head down Shake your head and say what were you thinking.Well, it really depends… I would say our current Pope would condemn burning heretics while other Popes have said it’s not against the will of the Spirit.
Reformation is necessary because it keeps everyone in line. If one group is being too extreme then other groups can outright condemn them, but I will admit Catholicism is looking pretty sweet right now.
yes, reformation, except that’s not exactly what happened back then i don’t think. that was more like outright schism and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. and it didn’t seem to stop there, the splintering kind of just carried on and went out of control. of course, the church had her own issues but there will always be issues. i think it’s better to deal with them from within rather than breaking and causing conflictWell, it really depends… I would say our current Pope would condemn burning heretics while other Popes have said it’s not against the will of the Spirit.
Reformation is necessary because it keeps everyone in line. If one group is being too extreme then other groups can outright condemn them, but I will admit Catholicism is looking pretty sweet right now.
and this is probably when someone would say that it was how people finally figured that catholicism was wrong. because they read the bible and comparedIt is true that in the first 13 centuries of the Church a large majority of people in Europe were illiterate. But that doesn’t mean the Church was responsible for the illiteracy. People were still read the bible during Mass and a basic understanding of Christ was told to them. What made the Church splinter was the printing press being invented and literacy rates rising.
The premise of your question contains huge generalisations.the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?
I have also heard that this thory was used by Protestants to say that Catholics wanted ppl to never read the Bible and for us to be ignorant.The premise of your question contains huge generalisations.
a) Most people were illiterate? What period of history are you referring to? in the hey day of the unified Byzantium Empire this is not true. By the late Dark Ages, Early Middle Ages this is True. Don’t forget however that all of the ruling class could and did read.
b)The Mass was in Latin and no one could understand it? The Mass was first said in Latin in the West because that was the language that people could understand they had trouble with Greek. Latin was the Commonly understood language through out the Western Empire, after the fall of Rome around 540AD, Language did diversify however right through out the Dark Ages and Middle Ages Latin was commonly understood, it was the Language of government and the educated and ruling classes, It is the mother language of most western European languages in use today and was part of the Princeton entrance exam as late as 1927. My Father heard the Mass in Latin as the vernacular was not used until after Vatican 2 and I have a Sunday missal of his with the Latin on one side and the English on the other.
c) The Church therefor could do what ever it wanted? The Church was constantly challenged. The invaders from the North were Arians. the Church did not take the easy way out with them, after the fall of Rome the entire West was Ruled by Arian Princes the Church stuck to the revealed Truth and over time about 120 years converted them to the Truth, history is full of petty Princes and Rulers challenging the Church let alone the constant problems and challenges to change her doctrine from the Emperor in Constantinople.
A comment like the one above does not deserve a rebuttal, the ignorance displayed in its content is surly rebuttal enough!